Share this story

When night falls, danger unfolds at the uMkhuze Game Reserve. And while some of the world’s most deadly predators—ranging in size from hyenas to lions—coexist next to African elephants, giraffes, and more within this massive, 140 square mile natural area, they aren't the only creatures out hunting at night.

This particular section of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa plays host to one of the country’s most profitable, albeit illegal, industries: poaching. In Africa, it’s a $70 billion business. Organized crime rings dabbling in poaching often carry ties to other smuggling industries like narcotics and weapons; some even connect with terrorist organizations. In this specific target area, rhinos most often land in the criminal crosshairs, with over 3,800 killed in South Africa alone over the past seven years. Their horns allegedly sell for $65,000 per kilogram as poachers look to profit from ivory and rhino horn powder.

On the evening of November 4, 2014, two poaching suspects entered the reserve. One carried a .458 caliber rifle outfitted with a silencer. A cane knife—a long, machete-like tool used for harvesting—may have also been involved. Nearly 80 rhinos had been poached already that year; more seemed destined for the tally. But by chance, four park rangers noticed suspicious movement while on foot patrol that evening. A firefight ensued.

“[Poachers] are prepared to shoot and kill whoever stands between them and a rhino horn,” Dr. Bandile Mkhize, the CEO of the company running the reserve, told the Zulu Observer one day later.

Luckily, in this encounter, the rangers (and rhinos) survived.

“We do not encourage the killing of poachers,” Mkhize said. “But at times our rangers are left with no choice as they defend themselves from these criminals who obviously do not value human life.” Throughout 2014, authorities had already arrested 50 suspected poachers and recovered 40 firearms.

In 2015, the war between wild life protectors and poachers continues to be both bloody and expensive. It's littered with similar (sometimes worse) incidents, and it requires investment in things like manned-aerial vehicles to supplement overmatched eyes on the ground. With such a complicated mess, it all sounds a bit like a war—so maybe it's no surprise that the most recent hope for a breakthrough comes from computer technology honed on an actual battlefield.

From Afghanistan to Africa

The US Department of Defense spent billions of dollars during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to prevent deaths caused by improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and one successful solution used a combination of mapping and big data to predict the most likely spots for attacks. That way, such areas could be surveyed with unmanned aircraft—aka drones. Today, this combination has made it south, and it's being applied to stopping the poaching of Africa's endangered elephants and rhinos.

The analogy between poachers and terrorist bombers holds up well according to Thomas Snitch, a visiting professor at the University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies (UMIACS). UMIACS was once contracted by the Department of Defense to apply its analytics "to find likely places where IED bombs would be placed in Afghanistan and Iraq," Snitch said. And while he had not been involved in the original research, Snitch reviewed the work extensively when he joined the program as a visiting professor eight years ago. "Then one day about five years ago when I was in Kenya, a ranger came up to me and said, 'The rhinos are being killed, the elephants are being killed, the lions are dying...is there something you can do to help?'"

Working with wildlife reserve rangers in Kenya and South Africa since, UMIACS developed algorithms based on animal tracking data, past poaching incidents, and a collection of other geospatial, weather, and environmental data. Now it can forecast where and when poaching might occur. When paired with drones, this information helps put rangers right where poachers are most likely to show up.

UMIACS has already tested its software in Africa with drones from UAV Solutions, a Maryland-based company. And Snitch said early results are encouraging. "Wherever we flew drones, poaching stopped."

Separately, South African unmanned aerial vehicle manufacturer UAV and Drone Solutions (UDS) has tried testing UMIACS' software within private reserves in eastern South Africa. To merge those efforts, the Charles A. and Anne Morrow Lindbergh Foundation decided to recruit UMIACS and UDS for a larger program called The Air Shepherd Initiative. This joint project (also involving the Peace Parks Foundation) is trying to raise enough money to train rangers and drone operators at reserves and national parks throughout all of Sub-Saharan East Africa. If they can equip the anti-poaching side with these proven systems, they hope to end the practice and prevent the extinction of certain local elephants and rhinos.

Share this story

Sean Gallagher
Sean is Ars Technica's IT and National Security Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland. Emailsean.gallagher@arstechnica.com//Twitter@thepacketrat

34 Reader Comments

One of the few times I'd be OK arming drones. I know I'm going to get down voted but damn it once something is gone its gone. There is no do-overs. I'm not a super mega tree huger or PETA member but when you have endangered species....find your living doing something, ANYTHING else.

Sadly a common theme with about half of all UAS operations that happen for anti poaching, is that it is simply used as a systems demo by a manufacturer or contractor to demo their capabilities. They go down for around a month, setup an impressive system, then tear it down and leave with it after they have enough information and photos to make a good conference presentation. (I've now sat through at least three of these overt talks at UAS conferences)

When a company talks about being there for a month, and having brought along ShotSpotter, MTI, a massive GCS assembled in a nice building, it's hard to take them seriously. Indeed they took more technology for a short month long demo then a friend had available when using the Shadow in Iraq. On the otherhand there are people who send systems out to be used once 3 years ago and still talk about it as if the system is in use there now.

On the otherhand there is a lot of opportunities for UAS to be providing assistance in against poachers, and it sounds like this is a serious long term effort, rather then a one off to be able to talk about capabilities. So all the more power to them. (And they have a *lot* of different systems there to try out, so that should be really good feedback for moving forwards on what size platform is needed to present the most actionable information)

Also, I'm curious what the range is they are operating some of their smaller equipment at, some of it does not have a lot of space for battery/payload.

Source: I work at a small UAS company/attend a decent number of UAS conferences.

I'm the furthest thing from a PETA supporter, mostly because those nuts seem more obsessed with solving non-problem first-world "problems" than with doing something constructive.

In contrast, I'm totally on board with responding to poachers -- and their customers -- "with extreme prejudice." Like terrorists and acts of terrorism or pirates and offense of international piracy, poachers represent a menace to common society, international order, and the shared interests of lawful nations. They should be treated accordingly.

Nearly anything remotely feasible that will make poachers' lives and business more perilous, costly, and miserable is A-OK by me. As far as I'm concerned, regions and species targeted by poachers should be placed under constant heavy surveillance. Anyone spotted with weapons or trapping gear not broadcasting a friendly IFF should understand that they will be treated as legitimate targets subject to immediate use of deadly force, with no preference for capture. Nor should they be safe outside of those areas. To the extent poachers and those doing business with them are known and can be identified elsewhere, such individuals should be the lawful subject of raids by police and military forces of any responding nation, as well as private bounty hunters.

It's nice to see more drones being used to combat poaching -- it's an obvious application. My only qualm is that they aren't doing more with the drones and going further in how they're used.

That's interesting, and an interesting coincidence given that Microsoft just published a video a few days ago touting the use of the Surface in at least one such effort. That was a PR video, though, so this is a nice deeper look at what's going on.

Its about curbing behaviour of consumers. If there is no demand there won't be an ivory trade.

Making it illegal didn't help either.

You need to start a campaign that relies on base impulses and fear.

A viral media campaign that shows a link between ivory and reproductive cancers. "Ivory gives you testicular cancer!" or "Ivory gives you uterine cancer" or "Ivory brings bad luck, these people lost their house!"

I recommend getting the editors or The Lancet on board with the program.

I also have no problem with the destruction of poachers, full or otherwise and through any means necessary, but realistically, it's the same problem we have with drugs. Until the demand is reduced, it will be profitable for someone on the supply side, and teaching them that they can be killed will only encourage them to defend themselves more vigorously. So I think this use of the drones is a much better option.

Sad to see that $7M is "a LOT" of money to help prevent the extinction of a species.

Its about curbing behaviour of consumers. If there is no demand there won't be an ivory trade.

Making it illegal didn't help either.

You need to start a campaign that relies on base impulses and fear.

A viral media campaign that shows a link between ivory and reproductive cancers. "Ivory gives you testicular cancer!" or "Ivory gives you uterine cancer" or "Ivory brings bad luck, these people lost their house!"

I recommend getting the editors or The Lancet on board with the program.

One of the few times I'd be OK arming drones. I know I'm going to get down voted but damn it once something is gone its gone. There is no do-overs. I'm not a super mega tree huger or PETA member but when you have endangered species....find your living doing something, ANYTHING else.

I doubt you'll get voted down actually, I don't think you're going to see a lot of tears shed here over dead poachers.

Its about curbing behaviour of consumers. If there is no demand there won't be an ivory trade.

Working the poacher angle definitely helps curb consumer behavior because it drives up the cost of ivory. More poachers being caught, higher risks for poachers, equal higher prices and lower demand. As someone else pointed out, the same argument was made about drugs. But my guess is that ivory is more elastic than illicit drugs.

Not to say that both the consumer and producer angles shouldn't be worked in parallel.

As far as I'm concerned, regions and species targeted by poachers should be placed under constant heavy surveillance. Anyone spotted with weapons or trapping gear not broadcasting a friendly IFF should understand that they will be treated as legitimate targets subject to immediate use of deadly force, with no preference for capture.

A few days ago the comments were about how poor African's should get net neutrality and facebook is evil for not doing such. I wonder how your unconstitutional suggestion gets treated today?

Its about curbing behaviour of consumers. If there is no demand there won't be an ivory trade.

Working the poacher angle definitely helps curb consumer behavior because it drives up the cost of ivory. More poachers being caught, higher risks for poachers, equal higher prices and lower demand. As someone else pointed out, the same argument was made about drugs. But my guess is that ivory is more elastic than illicit drugs.

Not to say that both the consumer and producer angles shouldn't be worked in parallel.

There will always be someone buying ivory to show off. The best deterrent is deport any of them to the country of origin of the ivory and deal them the same penalty as the poachers they are funding.

One of the few times I'd be OK arming drones. I know I'm going to get down voted but damn it once something is gone its gone. There is no do-overs. I'm not a super mega tree huger or PETA member but when you have endangered species....find your living doing something, ANYTHING else.

I'm pretty divided about poachers. Some of these people are destitute and desperate for money. It doesn't excuse what they're doing, and I am absolutely 100% against poaching, but there is at least one iota of reasoning buried there.

I have a much greater hatred towards the morons who pay ridiculous money for powdered ocelot nipples in the first place . They are the real problem, but sadly you can't fix stupid.

One of the few times I'd be OK arming drones. I know I'm going to get down voted but damn it once something is gone its gone. There is no do-overs. I'm not a super mega tree huger or PETA member but when you have endangered species....find your living doing something, ANYTHING else.

I'm pretty divided about poachers. Some of these people are destitute and desperate for money. It doesn't excuse what they're doing, and I am absolutely 100% against poaching, but there is at least one iota of reasoning buried there.

I have a much greater hatred towards the morons who pay ridiculous money for powdered ocelot nipples in the first place . They are the real problem, but sadly you can't fix stupid.

What worries me is that this might not actually work in the long term. I don't think these poachers were completely thwarted; I think they avoided the area and went to work somewhere else. They had a choice between easy money and harder money, so they picked easy money.

If this drone program is deployed more widely, that's great. But I don't know that it will work in the long term. When the easy money goes away, the crooks aren't just going to throw up their hands and say "I give up, you got me" - like the article says, it's easy to tell who the poachers are: they're the ones much better off than their neighbors.

They're not likely to just give that up. They've already demonstrated a willingness to kill people to get what they want. They're going to look for some way to escalate. What will that be? I have no idea, but I find it hard to believe that this solution will drive them out of business; the economic incentive is simply too great, like it is for spamming.

The ultimate question, I guess, is whether this technological improvement just pushes the needle a bit, or whether it's enough to effect real lasting change.

One of the few times I'd be OK arming drones. I know I'm going to get down voted but damn it once something is gone its gone. There is no do-overs. I'm not a super mega tree huger or PETA member but when you have endangered species....find your living doing something, ANYTHING else.

I'm pretty divided about poachers. Some of these people are destitute and desperate for money. It doesn't excuse what they're doing, and I am absolutely 100% against poaching, but there is at least one iota of reasoning buried there.

I have a much greater hatred towards the morons who pay ridiculous money for powdered ocelot nipples in the first place . They are the real problem, but sadly you can't fix stupid.

I'm failing to see the stupid. "Hi I'm an asshole with money to burn! And I want that rare item because Eden Effect. Of course I don't care about species dying out, i just want my ocelot nipples!"

Since article mentioned "organized crime" for poachers, does it operate like any other organized crime and have informants from within reserve to tell them where rangers will be going etc?

If that is the case, then implementing this system can have two possible drawbacks (assuming at least one ranger is corrupted to reveal info) :1) poachers will get same maps that shows most likely places for animals to be (ie it will make it easier for them to know where to hunt)2) if drone pilots knows upfront where they will be sending drones that night, poachers will know too and will avoid it

There is way to mitigate #2, by having software deciding on the spot where drones will fly. If 'where' is not known before that very night, no ranger will know upfront and wont be able to inform poachers.

Unfortunately, #1 can not be helped - but presumably poachers already knew where to hunt animals, so it wont help them that much.

I also have no problem with the destruction of poachers, full or otherwise and through any means necessary, but realistically, it's the same problem we have with drugs. Until the demand is reduced, it will be profitable for someone on the supply side, and teaching them that they can be killed will only encourage them to defend themselves more vigorously. So I think this use of the drones is a much better option.

Sad to see that $7M is "a LOT" of money to help prevent the extinction of a species.

Agreed that arresting poachers is just one aspect of a complex problem, and that the demand / consumer side needs to be addressed as well. While there are parallels with the drug trade, the demand variable is not as strong for rhino horn as for additive drugs.

Addicts whose bodies equate their drug with literal survival who will go to nearly any lengths to get the next hit create higher demand than someone who "thinks" they need rhino horn or who wants ivory chachkas. There is a real demand to deal with, but it's not as acute.

I say throw in a few Hellfire missiles. Stories start to get around that you get blown up for poaching, it might put a damper on the business

An attractive idea, but not likely to work. I live in one of the most expensive parts of the U.S., and $65,000 is more than I make in a year. That's for 1 kg of horn. Even here, plenty of people would risk their lives for that kind of money. In rural Africa, I think many people would risk their entire family's lives for that.

The only real answer is demand reduction. Idiotic thinking that makes people think exotic animal parts is not unique to East Asia. It's just that in the West, the common victims of magical thinking are acai berries and noni fruit. If I can figure out how to make people act logically, I'll export that knowledge and the rhinos will be saved.

Its about curbing behaviour of consumers. If there is no demand there won't be an ivory trade.

Working the poacher angle definitely helps curb consumer behavior because it drives up the cost of ivory. More poachers being caught, higher risks for poachers, equal higher prices and lower demand. As someone else pointed out, the same argument was made about drugs. But my guess is that ivory is more elastic than illicit drugs.

Not to say that both the consumer and producer angles shouldn't be worked in parallel.

My worry is that how high would that price have to go before the demand goes away. Some of those hidden Chinese billionaires who craves for these kinds of stuff have so much cash and so little sense that they probably won't be batting an eyebrow until prices goes up into the tens of millions per tusk/horn.

I think that the ultimate solution would be to incarcerate the end user of the powdered horn/ivory.Unfortunately, I believe the end users would be the wealthy in some of the most "corrupt" nations on earth [ you can draw your own conclusions on which countries I am inferring to]. Sad really ;(

Reading this article and the comments makes me that much more appreciative of the old piece by Douglas Adams on rhino poaching that I read a few weeks ago in The Salmon of Doubt:

Quote:

...we have begun to realise that just wading into Africa and telling the local people that they mustn’t do to their wildlife what we’ve done to ours, and that we are there to make sure they don’t, is an attitude that, to say the least, needs a little refining.

The communities that live along the margins of the great national parks have a tough time. They are poor and undernourished, their lands are restricted by the parks, and when from time to time the odd lion or elephant breaks out of the park, they are the ones who suffer. Arguments about preserving the genetic diversity of the planet can seem a little abstract to someone who has just lost the crops he needs to feed his family or, worse, has just lost one of his family. In the long run, conservation can’t be imposed by outsiders, overriding the needs of local people. If anyone is going to take care of the wildlife, then, in the end, it must be the local people—and someone must take care of them.

It's a desolate, impoverished area. Most people live by farming small plots of maize and vegetables. ... Eusebio was [paid] a fraction of the value of a rhino horn…it meant he could move his three wives and children out of their stick hut into a small house of brick and concrete, buy some cattle and set up a small bar. Though he's not proud of killing rhinos, he says his family might otherwise be going hungry.

Depressingly enough, the people that are in it for greed are...can you guess?

Quote:

"The police and soldiers bring the weapons here for us to go and poach," says Eusebio's father, Jeremiah. "So the first step is for the government to stop the police and soldiers bringing guns from the capital Maputo - but if the guns continue to come here, our children will continue to go poaching because they have nothing else to do."